Let's call this a "Guest Column"
"The party has not spoken... yet" posted the following comment under "Wow...What a Firestorm!:
The question is not whether Lisa Paolino would have won.
The question is whether she had the right to be on the ballot for the 17th District Senate seat and whether her rights and the rights of all of the women on the Delaware County and Montgomery County GOP Committees were violated when Ken Davis deliberately excluded the only female candidate from the ballot and from the convention.
Ken Davis referred to Lisa Paolino as a "problem" and as "that... woman" in his phone message. (check out the phone message at http://writemarsh.blogspot.com/2008/02/process-doesnt-seem-legitimate.html)
(Good Readers: I posted the audio in it's own window and placed a link in my sidebar. B.)
Ken Davis made it clear that Lisa Paolino was deliberately excluded from the ballot and that he did not want Lisa Paolino to attend the 17th District Endorsement Convention. He also made it clear that he would throw out any Delaware County Committee People who showed up at the 17th District Senate Seat endorsement convention.
He had no right to do this. Let's look at the law:
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are state actors under U.S. law. Neither party may issue rules designed to exclude a female candidate or a minority candidate in the nomination process. Such discrimination violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the United States Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court has rejected the argument that a “political party is not a ‘State or political subdivision’ within the meaning of Section 5” of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996).
The Supreme Court likewise stated that “We have previously recognized that Section 5 extends to changes affecting nomination processes other than the primary.” Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996).
A copy of the High Court’s Morse opinion can be viewed at Cornell Law School’s website at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-203.ZO.html
Ken Davis should have allowed ALL of the 17th District Committee People decide who is the best candidate for the 17th District Senate Seat. He usurped the authority of the Committee People, and he once again has made the GOP look bad.
Let's remember -- Ken Davis did this in the name of the Republican Party, claiming to be acting on behalf of all Republicans.
Now it's time for all of the the Republican voters to let Ken Davis know that the party are its people and that WE decide.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Another Great Comment That Deserves it's own Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Maybe you should name this link "Guest column" with a title, such as "The Republican Revolution".
Let's let people know that the loyal members of the Republican party fiercely defend our nations's constitution.
This is the kind of tradition that stands the test of time.
Suggested title:
Instead of calling this "Another Great Comment That Deserves Its Own Post", how about giving it a unique identity:
"Guest Column -- The Republican Revolution"
Let's let people know that the true Republicans fiercly defend our nation's constitution and the equal rights of all people.
This is a tradition worth keeping.
Bill,
Can you contemplate something?
Here it is: what Ken Davis has done by his actions prior to the endorsement is to set up the sympathy vote for Lisa Paolino, correct?
So here is food for thought: maybe it is time to not merely contemplate someone you feel has been wronged by Davis (list is very long, correct?), but candidates on merits alone.
Until a short time ago, most of us had not heard of any of these candidates, except for Daylin Leach.
You want a candidate that is winnable, right?
That is not candidate Paolino, no matter how she slices it (even Tony Phyrillas refers to her as a "minor candidate".)
http://tonyphyrillas.blogspot.com/2008/01/mudslinging-in-17th-district-senate.html
If this candidate were winnable, wouldn't have Delco backed her? Considering Delco's history in the recent past, don't you think they want candidates who are winnable?
As for this poster whom you gave a space to, thank you. It makes people read the post and do reserach. And the thing is this: no matter how much anyone hates Ken Davis, he did not do anything legally wrong with keeping Ms. Paolino from speaking.
That was not an open, public meeting the other night, and legally, on that premise, he could have denied anyone. It was a closed meeting and violated no laws (except maybe the total legal event occupancy limits, LOL)
The "female" candidate IS on the primary ballot, ergo not excluded. Besides, this is the same candidate who claims she is and always has been an independent Republican and can run with or without endorsement, right? (of course, who knew that Delaware County had any independent Republicans, right?)
Delaware County's party boss, Judge, made a decision: he deferred to Ken Davis. That is not so unusual, or again, illegal. Delco is what? 20 percet or less of the 17th district?
Let's talk about John Durante for a minute? How could he not have know that Ken Davis was doing this? Was it a great secret? Or did someone set up Durante for a fall? Or did Durante just decide a la Tom Cruise in Risky Business "sometimes you have to just say what the f****" (note: this isn't cursing, just quoting/paraphrasing)
So, everyone should feel the way they choose about Ken Davis, but don't let that cloud the facts, and in essence, if this unendorsed candidate chooses to pursue this legally, it's her political future, not OURS. If she feels the best way to get her own way is the American way to sue, then hey, it's her portion of OPM, right?
Except what don't you see happening? Well that of course. Why? Because it simply won't hold up.
There has NOT been discrimination which violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the United States Constitution.
Yes, Ken Davis did what he thought he had to do, but do not punish any candidate for his actions.
In retrospect, can it be considered that if he had allowed this candidate to come speak, it would have saved us all a lot of wasted comment space? But hindsight is 40/40.
If Ms. Paolino has something to say about the process, let her say something publicly about the process, ok? She knows how to do a press release, doesn't she?
Odds makers, where are you on this? Also odds makers, where are you on either of these Republican candidates being able to defeat Daylin Leach?
So what other fun do we have to talk about? What about State House? Who do Republicans have to choose from? What about Congress? How do you feel about the Presidential candidates?
"Here's The Way It Really Works in Pennsylvania. . .
Local Party Committees (The "Machine")
Historically, when there is more than one candidate from either major party on the ballot at a Primary Election, that party's local committee will usually get together and endorse one candidate.
In the local committees of the party which represents the gerrymandered majority of voters, the party bosses are generally cronies of elected officials. Naturally, when endorsement time rolls around, those incumbents usually get the nod over any challenger.
Those "official" endorsements are usually reported by the local media and voters are led to believe that the party's endorsed candidate is the best person for the job.
However, what most voters do not realize is that in addition to party bosses kowtowing to elected officials, the endorsements itself is often rigged.
In many areas, a "pay to play" policy may be an unwritten rule, but in at least one county in PA, PACleanSweep has discovered evidence that this policy is actually written into committee bylaws.
Here's how it works in that county: any endorsed candidate in a primary is expected to pony up 10% of their first year's salary for the elected position; win or lose, opposed or not. If that candidate wins the primary and is then opposed by another party's candidate at the General Election, they are expected to pony up another 10%.
The Results
With incumbent legislators manipulating the borders of districts every ten years and directing traffic in the local "pay to play" party committees, it's not too hard to see why the General Assembly traditionally had a 98% retention ratio year after year - until 2006, that is.
This has led the General Assembly to have faith in their ability to get re-elected and has emboldened them to pass some outrageous legislation - capped off by Act 44, the unconstitutional pay raise of July 7, 2005.
At PACleanSweep, we hope you will join us in saying "enough is enough" and work to defeat this system which no longer represents the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Some Questions Every Pennsylvanian Should Ask
1. If the purpose of Primary Elections is to allow voters to choose their party's nominee for the General Election, why do local committees cloud the issue by making an endorsement? Why not simply allow the voters to choose the candidate they prefer?
2. Knowing that party endorsement is a "pay to play" system, is your local committee's endorsed candidate really the best person for the job, or merely the person most willing or able to buy or trade for the favor of local party bosses?
3. If only Republican and Democratic voters can participate in most Primary Elections, why do ALL taxpayers have to foot the bill? Isn't that taxation without representation?
4. If your local party bosses wish - through their "endorsement" process - to select the candidate they prefer, why not simply do that without the expense of a Primary Election, just like the other parties do it?
5. Who are the members of your local party's committee?
6. Who are the officers of your local party's committee?
7. Who sits on the Executive Committee of your local party?
8. Is this any way to run a Commonwealth?
At PACleanSweep, we believe it is emphatically NOT the best way to run a Commonwealth. We helped to reverse this trend in 2006, when a total of 55 legislators were replaced, and we aim to continue that effort in the future."
http://www.pacleansweep.com/politics101.html
Although I don't agree with everything that Clean Sweep says, I do appreciate that they want to improve the political system in Pennsylvania.
I hope we can make the system better for the next generation so that they will want to be involved in politics.
ok all comments here are well worth taking a look at, but we still shouldn't vote in underqualified candidates on the sympathy vote.....Bill, no blogs are interviewing any of these candidates yet. Why don't you? And if they won't talk to a citizen journalist or try to fluff you off with a pre-written press release, tell us that too.
Give the Republican candidates for State House and State Senate a series of questions to respond to. Post it on your blog with to whom you sent the comments and when the cutoff for replies is.
Then post the candidates responses (if they have the guts to respond) WORD for WORD.
Whaddya think?
Already working on it-Great minds think alike!
I will be sending it out this week with a respond time of 1 week.
I plan to include a SASE...no excuses for ignoring the questions.
B.
Also, on the Durante, Paolino, Rogers debate...as far as "unqualified goes?
John Durante was just elected to his third term as Sheriff...with over 30 years of public service with the county detective's bureau.
Lisa Paolino was just elected to her third term as Radnor Township Supervisor.
"Sometimes Republican" Lance Rogers? Elected in 2005 to his first term as Lower Merion commissioner
Lessee...30+ years versus 9 years versus 2 years...
I know who the least qualified person is.
B.
Post a Comment